This video showcases the differences between the FC-Mil and FC-DMx reticles in the NX8 LPVO, as well as a quick blurb about the ACRO P2 and Leupold Pro DPP-NV
I always really enjoy watching your reviews. They are almost always particularly relevant to my interest at the time and typically on things not covered all that well on RU-vid. This is probably a testament to our combined and somewhat niche taste. Thank you.
I kind of want the DMx but still really like the original reticle, it's just so clean and fast for just using holds. I just use the tip of the post to get a good zero at 50 yd, then the dot is pretty much on at 100. Then anything besides shooting groups at 100 is cake.
The DMx offers wind holds and obscures less of the target while offering a finer central aiming point, as well as some holds above the center, which can be used for precision at closer distances, etc. (Snake, small vermin, low percentage shot, etc)
At 100m, 0.2mrad = 2cm. For Americans, that's 0.78 inches. We can find the maximum deviation from POI due to coarseness of adjustment by dividing this by 2. This leaves us with a maximum theoretical margin of mechanical zero variance from true, of 0.39". The use of this optic is typically not associated with weapons capable of firing group sizes that would give a mechanical mis-match of 0.39moa statistical significance. At 1000 yards this is a 3.9" mechanical mis-match...and that's the theoretical maximum. The realistic maximum is going to fall between this number, and 0, following a standard deviation curve. @@stripes9908
@@UnobtaniumsQuickReviews That is a more than informative response, thank you for that one. I dont have any experience with MRADS and was almost turned off by the idea that its not "as precise as other optics" which is stupid because I know this isnt supposed to be a precision optic, lol.
